LEGISLATIVE PERCEPTIONS OF SUSTAINABLE TOURISM: THE CASE OF THE NORTH CAROLINA GENERAL ASSEMBLY

By

Shannon Arnold

April, 2011

DIRECTOR OF THESIS: Derek Alderman, Paige P. Schneider

MAJOR DEPARTMENT: M.S. in Sustainable Tourism

The tourism industry is the second largest contributor to North Carolina’s economy. The

traditional thrust behind many national and state tourism policies has focused on the industry’s

employment potential and opportunities for economic growth. However, consumer demand is

shifting toward a more sustainable approach to tourism that balances economic growth with

environmental and social-cultural enhancement and equity. Given the growing pressure placed

on legislators to address tourism development, and specifically sustainable tourism, there is a

clear need to better understand legislators’ perceptions of tourism and enhance communication

between legislators and tourism practitioners.

By identifying the perceptions of elected leaders at the state level; destination marketers,

advocates of sustainability, and consumers will have a better understanding of how to effectively

communicate with, and lobby their local legislators. This study replicates and extends a previous

study. Using a multi-method approach data were collected through a web-based survey, mail

survey, and face-to-face interception; this study seeks to measure and analyze North Carolina

legislators’ knowledge of and attitudes towards the tourism industry and sustainable

development within the industry.

Legislative Perceptions of Sustainable Tourism:

The Case of the North Carolina General Assembly

A Thesis

Presented to the Faculty of the Department of Research and Graduate Studies

East Carolina University

In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree

M.S. in Sustainable Tourism

By:

Shannon Arnold

April, 2011

© Copyright Shannon Arnold 2011

Legislative Perceptions of Sustainable Tourism: The Case of North Carolina General Assembly

by

Shannon Arnold

APPROVED BY: CO-CHAIR OF THESIS: _______________________________________________________

Derek Alderman, PhD

CO-CHAIR OF THESIS: _______________________________________________________ Paige P. Schneider, PhD

COMMITTEE MEMBER: _______________________________________________________

John Howard, PhD

DIRECTOR OF THE MASTERS OF SCIENCE IN SUSTAINABLE TOURISM

_______________________________________________________________ Joseph Fridgen, PhD

DEAN OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL

______________________________________________________________ Paul J. Gemperline, PhD

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I want to thank Derek Alderman, Paige P. Schneider, and John Howard for all the long hours that

were spent leading, guiding, and editing this work. All three of you have families that I pulled you away

from one way or another, so thank you to those family members for understanding. I would also like to

thank Pat Long and the Center for Sustainable Tourism for taking interest in this topic and empowering

me to construct a quality product. Finally, I would like to thank my family and friends for supporting me

through this educational process.

Table of Contents

LIST OF TABLES………………………………………………………………………………..vi

LIST OF FIGURES……………………………………………………………………………...vii

Chapter 1: Introduction

Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 1

Statement of the Problem ................................................................................................................ 4

Purpose of Study ............................................................................................................................. 5

Objectives ....................................................................................................................................... 5

Limitations ...................................................................................................................................... 6

Delimitations ................................................................................................................................... 7

Organization of Thesis .................................................................................................................... 7

Definition of Terms......................................................................................................................... 8

Chapter 2: Literature Review

Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 9

Defining Sustainable Tourism ...................................................................................................... 10

The Relationship Between Politics and Tourism .......................................................................... 11

Planning in Tourism ...................................................................................................................... 12

Taxes and Tourism ........................................................................................................................ 13

Transport and Tourism .................................................................................................................. 13

Government and Sustainable Tourism .......................................................................................... 16

Conclusion .................................................................................................................................... 17

Chapter 3: Data and Methodology

Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 18

Design of the Study ....................................................................................................................... 18

Population and Sampling .............................................................................................................. 19

Instrumentation and Distribution .................................................................................................. 20

Survey Development ..................................................................................................................... 21

Pretest ............................................................................................................................................ 23

Collection ...................................................................................................................................... 23

Conclusion .................................................................................................................................... 24

Chapter 4: Analysis and Results

Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 25

Screening of data........................................................................................................................... 25

Profile of respondents ................................................................................................................... 26

Overall general knowledge ........................................................................................................... 28

Definition of Sustainable Tourism ................................................................................................ 35

Importance of tourism towards economy ..................................................................................... 39

Support or opposition to tourism in the legislature ....................................................................... 43

Image of the industry .................................................................................................................... 47

Analysis comparing political party and legislative body .............................................................. 49

Conclusion .................................................................................................................................... 54

Chapter 5: Conclusions, Recommendations, and Areas for Future Research

Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 55

Conclusions ................................................................................................................................... 55

Implementation ............................................................................................................................. 57

Recommendations ......................................................................................................................... 58

Final Comments ............................................................................................................................ 59

References and Appendices References ..................................................................................................................................... 61

Appendix A ................................................................................................................................... 65

Appendix B ................................................................................................................................... 66

Appendix C ................................................................................................................................... 71

Appendix D ................................................................................................................................... 72

LIST OF TABLES

1. Postulates in the role of transport in tourism development……………………………………15

2. Profile of Respondents…………………………………………………………………… …...27

3. Definitions of sustainable tourism provided by survey respondents……………………… ….36

4. Percentage of responses when asked about the importance of tourism…………………… .…40

5. Pearson correlation to show level of importance…………………………………………… ...42

6. Support for tourism in legislature………………………………………………………… …..44

7. Chi-square test results………………………………………………………………… ………46

8. Impacts of sustainability to the state – Political Party……………………………………… ...50

9. Impacts of sustainability to the state – Legislative Body……………………………………. .53

LIST OF FIGURES

1. Dollar value of tourism to the state ……………………………………………………………30

2. Number of jobs generated in NC by tourism………………………………………………….32

3. National ranking in terms of tourists spending ……………………………………… ……….34

4. Perception of the tourism industry………………………………………………… ………….48

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

1.1 Introduction

In 2009, travel and tourism generated $22.2 billion in total economic demand in North

Carolina. This economic activity sustains 378,000 jobs. Furthermore, 8.6% of all wages and

salaries in the state were directly or indirectly dependent on tourism. In 2009, $9.9 billion in

revenue was generated by tourism demand. In terms of employment, tourism sustains 88% of the

air transport sector, 100% of the lodging sector, 31% of the recreation/entertainment sector, and

25% of the food and beverage sector. Including indirect and induced impacts, tourism in North

Carolina generates $2.6 billion in state and local taxes and $2.7 billion in federal taxes.

According to the North Carolina Department of Commerce, domestic visitors to and within

North Carolina spent $16.9 billion in 2008, a 2.1% increase over 2007. Since 2000, tourism has

grown by 36.2% (North Carolina Department of Commerce, 2009). The industry is the second

largest contributor to North Carolina’s economy making it important to understand knowledge of

and attitudes towards the tourism industry and the growing trend of sustainable development

within the industry.

The traditional thrust behind many national and state tourism policies has been the focus

on the industry’s employment potential and opportunities for economic growth (Godfrey, 1998).

Similar to many states, North Carolina has long pursued these tourism development goals.

However, consumer demand is shifting toward a more sustainable approach to tourism that

balances economic growth with environmental and social-cultural enhancement and equity.

One-third of United States consumers are influenced by travel suppliers’ environmental

responsibility (Adams, 2009). Consumer support of environmentally-friendly

2

travel, even in an economic downturn, is reported at 48%. According to the U.S. Travel Industry,

55% of consumers visiting destinations say they want to protect the environment (Adams, 2009).

Currently a range of research regarding tourism policy and sustainable tourism exists; however,

the literature which investigates legislative perceptions of tourism policy and sustainable tourism

is limited at best. In an attempt to fill this void, this study examined the perceptions that

legislators in North Carolina’s General Assembly hold about the tourism industry and the

importance of sustainable tourism, updating and advancing a similar study (McGehee et al.,

2006). By identifying the perceptions of elected leaders at the state level, destination marketers,

advocates of sustainability, and consumers will have a better understanding of how to effectively

communicate with and lobby their local legislators.

A striking feature of contemporary tourism is the sheer volume of collaborative initiatives

between local authorities, government agencies, businesses, and host communities (Charlton &

Essex, 1996). Development scholars believe that local organizations are an important and

necessary component of social action in community development (McCool & Moisley, 2008.)

One specific organization focused on community and state-wide tourism development is the

Travel Industry Association of North Carolina (NCTIA). NCTIA is a membership organization

comprised of local business owners and scholars that have a vested interest in the tourism

industry. This association created an advocacy group for the purpose of promoting tourism

development in the state.

The North Carolina Travel and Tourism Coalition (NCTTC) monitors legislative study

commissions between sessions, develops legislative initiatives on behalf of the industry, provides

information to legislators, and serves as the voice of the industry during legislative sessions

3

(North Carolina Travel and Tourism Coalition, 2006). In 2009, the legislative agenda for

NCTTC supported:

• Funding for tourism marketing and promotion: the coalition will urges the General

Assembly to continue and expand its critical investment in marketing and advertising

North Carolina as a destination for business and pleasure travelers.

• Local occupancy tax policy: all new and revised occupancy taxes should be dedicated to

the promotion of travel and tourism.

• Consumer protections for ticket sales over the internet: the coalition supports

legislation that protects consumers by regulating the resale of concert and sporting event

tickets over the Internet.

• Existing school calendar legislation: requiring schools to begin in late August – the

traditional time for back-to-school. This legislation is particularly important for the

tourism industry that is dependent on the summer vacationers (i.e. beach destinations).

• Maintain and expand the Tourism Matching Grants program: created by the general

assembly to enhance economic growth through tourism promotion and marketing in rural

and economically distressed areas of the state.

• Reinstitute the Rural Tourism Grants Program: re-establishment of funding to

support tourism development programs in rural areas.

• Sales tax refunds for Tourism Development Authorities: adding tourism development

authorities to the list of local public agencies exempt from State sales tax.

• Protect North Carolina’s environment: continue to support initiatives of the general

assembly and the administration to find prompt and effective remedies for environmental

concerns

4

In 2009, NCTTC opposed legislation geared towards:

• Taxes targeted at the travel and tourism industry: continue to oppose taxes, such as

meals taxes and admissions taxes, that are targeted exclusively at the travel and tourism

industry.

• Delegation of taxing authorities: legislation that delegates to local government the

power to impose taxes on components of the travel and tourism industry without prior

legislative authorization.

• Public funding of lodging facilities that compete with the private sector: the public

sector should not fund the development of lodging facilities that compete with private

sector hotels and lodging facilities (North Carolina Travel and Tourism Coalition, 2009).

Previous legislation that has been brought to legislators’ attention, along with

publications and promotions from the tourism industry, will continue to affect policy makers’

perceptions and knowledge of the industry. Legislators fuel the fiscal engine of state tourism

promotions agencies. They often determine marketing budgets and staff allotments. Furthermore,

legislators are charged with developing policies and legislation, which can significantly influence

the tourism industry via taxation and infrastructure development (McGehee & Meng, 2006).

Moreover, legislative support of sustainable tourism is especially important given the newness of

these types of initiatives within the industry.

1.2 Statement of the Problem

Given the growing pressure placed on legislators to address tourism development, and

specifically sustainable tourism, there is a clear need to better understand legislators’ perceptions

of tourism and enhance communication between legislators and tourism practitioners. Using

data collected through a survey that was administered by Internet, mail, and face-to-face (FtF)

5

means, this study measures and analyzes North Carolina General Assembly members’

knowledge of, and attitudes towards the tourism industry and sustainable development within the

industry. This project replicates and expands previous research in the area of politicians'

perceptions of the tourism industry conducted by McGhee, Meng, & Tepanon (2006). Previous

studies did not explore the knowledge and stance of legislators toward issues of sustainable

tourism.

1.3 Purpose of Study

Community stakeholders play a significant role in the success or failure of a tourism

industry. If local residents’ perceptions or preferences do not support tourism development then

such efforts are likely to be ineffective or even fail. Consequently, the development of goals and

strategies for tourism initiatives include the participation of local residents in the decision-

making process (McCool & Moisley, 2008.) Whether the communities possess the skills,

organization, and resources to effectively negotiate with forces in the political realm determines

the potential for community members to effectively articulate their needs during the strategic

planning process (Horochowski & Moisley, 1999). It is important for the industry to identify the

gaps in knowledge and misperceptions of the tourism industry of North Carolina legislators’ in

order to identify areas of future education and to develop effective channels of communication

between legislators and tourism developers. In response to these needs, this study is designed to

identify prevailing perceptions among legislators and offer recommendations for more effective

communication between the tourism industry and elected officials.

1.4 Objectives

The objectives of this study were:

6

1) Identify the level of knowledge of the General Assembly members with regards to

tourism.

a. To what extent are General Assembly members able to accurately identify

the benefits of tourism across the state?

b. To what extent do General Assembly members have a critical

understanding of sustainable tourism?

2) Identify perceptions of tourism among legislators in the North Carolina General

Assembly.

a. Determine if tourism is perceived as an important economic booster.

b. Compare perceived economic importance of tourism in the two political

parties (Democratic and Republican) and the two legislative bodies

(House and Senate).

3) Determine the level North Carolina legislators’ support or opposition to

sustainable tourism development.

a. Compare perceived importance of sustainable tourism by political party

and legislative body.

b. Establish keywords and common themes in defining sustainable tourism.

c. Determine the legislators’ incentive for supporting sustainability –

economic, social, or environmental.

4) Offer recommendations for how to advance legislative knowledge and increase

legislative support.

1.6 Limitations

7

The study was limited by the following factors: (1) a low response rate due to the poor

timing of survey administration; surveys were distributed during an election year, preventing

respondents from answering due to a busy schedule (2) due to the low response rate, the

population was expanded to include staff members of the North Carolina General Assembly; (3)

access to the World Wide Web may have influenced responses given in both the web-based and

mail surveys; (4) certain counties have limited access to visitors and funding for economic

development; therefore, respondents representing those counties have low awareness about the

industry and may be reluctant to complete the survey.

1.7 Delimitations

The scope of this survey was delimited to elected officials in the North Carolina State

Legislature, representing both the House of Representatives and State Senate in the year 2010.

The census of state level elected officials does not include Federal Congressmen or

Congresswomen that are also elected by local constituents to represent the state of North

Carolina and does not include any General Assembly members from previous terms. The study

also did not examine the perceptions of elected officials at the level of city and county

government; officials at this level also influence tourism development.

1.8 Organization of Thesis

Chapter one introduced the study and the objectives that shape the thesis research. A

summary of the current tourism industry and future trends in development has been provided.

The statement of the problem reinforces the validity of this study and highlights the previous

studies conducted by McGehee et al. (2006). Chapter two provides background literature that

supports the rationale for the study. The background literature also demonstrates other areas of

the industry that are affected by political decision making. Chapter three explains the

8

methodology strategy utilized in this study. It outlines the development of the questionnaire and

the unforeseeable steps that were taken to increase the response rate. Chapter four is a summary

of the data collection and coding process. After the data were coded and organized, analysis was

conducted and results were summarized. Chapter five is a concluding chapter that restates the

key findings from chapter four and supplies the reader with recommendations for future research.

1.9 Definition of Terms

Tourist: temporary visitors staying at least twenty-four hours in the country visited and

the purpose of whose journey can be classified under one of the following headings: (a) leisure

(recreation, holiday, health, study, religion, and sport), (b) business, family, mission, meeting

(Leiper, 1977, p.393).

Tourism: “processes, activities, and outcomes arising from the relationships and the

interactions among tourists, tourism suppliers, host governments, host communities, and

surrounding environments that are involved in the attracting and hosting of visitors” (Goeldner &

Ritchie, 2003, p.5-6).

Sustainable Tourism: management of all resources in such a way that economic, social

and aesthetic needs can be fulfilled while maintaining cultural integrity, essential ecological

processes, biological diversity and life support systems (World Tourism Organization, 2004).

Lobbying: influencing or attempting to influence legislative or executive action through

(1) direct communication or activities with designated individuals or their immediate families or

(2) the development of goodwill “through communications or activities, including the building of

relationships,” with designated individuals or their immediate families. A designated individual

is a legislator, a legislative employee, or a public servant (National Conference of State

Legislators, 2010).

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Introduction

Government is an important factor in the development, growth, and expansion of the

domestic and international tourism industries. Hall (1994) identified five roles of government

vital to the success of the tourism industry: coordination, planning, legislation and regulation,

entrepreneurship, and stimulation. Hall argued that government needs to play a larger role in

facilitating stakeholder involvement by balancing power among the people and/or businesses

involved in tourism development (McGehee & Meng, 2006). Although many tourism academics

and researchers recognize and value the perceptions of legislators with regard to the tourism

industry; very little research has been conducted to examine this relationship. To this point, no

research has been conducted that specifically addresses legislative perceptions of sustainable

tourism.

Previous research in other fields related to tourism have examined the opinions of

legislators, such topics include public policy (Dredge & Jenkins, 2003), federal airline policy

(Abeyrante, 1995), environmental policy (Buckley, 2004; Cook, 1982; Hope & Klemm, 2001;

Holden, 2008; McCool &Moisey, 2008), political economy (Mak and Moore, 1998; McGehee,

1990); planning (Ivars Baidal, 2004; Kerr, Barron, & Wood, 2001); national parks (Moore,

2002); and bed and breakfasts (Norman, 1987). The role of research in effecting industry action

can be profound. For example, in response to the McGehee (1990) study the North Carolina

tourism industry established the North Carolina Travel and Tourism Coalition. The NCTTC is

comprised of associations, businesses, industries, resorts, attractions, convention and visitors’

bureaus, and other organizations throughout North Carolina. The coalition’s main objectives are

10

to (1) adopt a unified approach and voice, (2) educate legislators to better understand the

industry, (3) increase legislative support (McGehee et al., 2006). As the statewide tourism

industry continues to recognize the importance of the role of government, it is important to also

recognize the shift in the industry and keep legislators informed of new initiatives. The shift in

consumer demand for a more environmentally responsible destination is creating a need that the

tourism industry is slowly fulfilling. To recognize the shift and cater to consumer demands, it is

important to define sustainable tourism.

2.2 Defining Sustainable Tourism

During the 1980’s, the political arena began to see more emphasis placed on

environmental concerns at a global scale. A significant response to these concerns was the 1992

United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (The Earth Summit). Agenda 21

arose from the Earth Summit; guiding professionals on the principles of sustainable development

without establishing any legal confines. Participants in the summit identified travel and tourism

as an important contributor to making a healthier planet (Berry, 1997). Agenda 21 put

sustainability on the global political agenda, but the lack of initiative taken by governments at

national, regional, and local levels has led to travel and tourism becoming a concern for

sustainable development (Lane, 2009). The Bruntland Report Our Common Future established

one of the initial definitions of sustainable development, “meeting the needs of the present

without compromising the ability of the future generations to meet their own needs” (World

Commission on Environment and Development, 1987).

In order to understand sustainable tourism, stakeholders must examine the interaction

between environment and tourism. The growing demand for tourism is a reflection of changing

economic and social conditions in home environments, as much as it is about the physical and

11

cultural characteristics of the landscapes to which tourists travel (Holden, 2008). The debate over

defining sustainable tourism has expanded: the early focus on environmental issues has now

broadened to include economic, social, and cultural issues as well as levels of power and equity

in society (Bramwell & Lane, 1993; Crick, 1989; Hall, 1991; Urry, 1990). The World Tourism

Organization defined sustainable tourism as the management of all resources in such a way that

economic, social and aesthetic needs can be fulfilled while maintaining cultural integrity,

essential ecological processes, biological diversity and life support systems. Researchers assert

that despite the acceptance of sustainable tourism as a desired alternative to more predatory

models of development, a large gap exists between policy endorsement and policy

implementation. Berry (1997) argued there is a lack of communication from the top of the

hierarchy downwards, combined with little advice on how to translate the general principles of

sustainable tourism into workable practice at local and regional levels. To reduce the gap

between government endorsement and industry implementation, explanations of their

relationship must be examined.

2.3 The Relationship between Politics and Tourism

The relationship between governments and the tourism industry has remained strong

through the economic recession of 2007-2009. McGehee et al. (2006) summarize the relationship

between government and tourism prior to the recession in their previous study. The realm of

academic literature has not changed and no further studies have been conducted that specifically

addresses political perceptions of the tourism industry. Given this paucity of academic research,

industry-related reports and media articles are explored to establish the evolving relationship of

government and tourism.

12

The relationship between politicians, appropriations, and tourism is explored in the

following media articles. Lawmakers in the 2009 special session sliced the Indiana’s annual

contribution to the tourism department in half – from $4.8 million to $2.4 million. This budget

cut from policy makers has forced the Indiana Office of Tourism Development to alter their

marketing methods. New approaches to marketing the state as a tourism destination include

social media outlets, discount hotel packages, and reduced costs for concert and sporting events

(Olsen, 2010). In Pennsylvania, budget cuts have slashed 65 % of the state’s finding to tourism

promotion agencies across the commonwealth. In dollars, Pennsylvania’s tourism budget of $30

million decreased to an astonishing $11 million to be dispersed among the state’s 67 counties

(Metz, 2010). According to the U.S. Travel Association, total visitor spending across the U.S. in

2009 was $704.5 billion, down 9% from 2008; with an expected increase of 4.8 % in visitor

spending as the industry remains cautiously optimistic (U.S. Travel Outlook, 2010).

As policy makers at the state level have made tough decisions to cut tourism budgets, a

shining light for the industry was the national Travel Promotion Act that President Obama signed

into law on March 3, 2010. This act seeks to recuperate the tourism industry but will require

international visitors to pay a fee when entering U.S. soil. “The travel industry has been lobbying

for the law for years, arguing that the United States’ reputation as a destination has suffered due

to stepped-up security in the post 9/11 era and that more inbound visits will provide a much need

jolt to the sluggish economy” (Yu, 2010, p.1). Previous research has shown that politics and

tourism have many other connections in addition to state marketing and promotion budgets.

2.4 Planning in Tourism

One of the many ways in which government, specifically political leaders, play a role in

tourism development is through regulation of planning and zoning laws. City planners are

13

constantly making decisions which directly and indirectly affect the way the tourism industry

operates, the attractiveness of state destinations, the convenience of tourists with regard to ease

of stay, overall tourist experience, and the relationship between tourists and residents (Dredge &

Moore, 1992). Positions and key decision makers in these city planning offices are selected by

the legislature, therefore the power remains in the hands of these elected officials. Past research

reports that local government has been recognized as being the most important authority in

establishing tourism development policies (Bouquet &Winter, 1987; Pearce, 1989; Madrigal,

1993); it is at this level where the impacts of development--both positive and negative--are felt

most acutely.

2.5 Taxes and Tourism

Secondly, government agencies and political leaders regulate state and federal tax

revenues. The tourism industry directly benefits from occupancy taxes. In the U.S.

approximately 46% of all funding for local tourism alliances stems from occupancy tax revenues

(Palmer & Bejou, 1995). Occupancy tax rates are set by local governments and are subject to

change at any time (North Carolina 2007-2008 County and Municipal Occupancy Tax and Meals

Tax, 2008). The authority to establish an occupancy tax comes directly from the North Carolina

General Assembly. This legislation also controls what persons or companies are empowered to

collect the tax from guests, where the tax collections are directed and at what times of the year,

and to whom they will be disbursed throughout the county (NC House Bill 532, 1985). For full

text on occupancy tax legislation refer to Appendix C.

2.6 Transport and Tourism

Previous research shows that tourism development is closely linked with transportation.

Transportation is a fundamental requirement for tourism to occur. It is the pivotal element which

14

connects the tourist with the destination, unifying the origin-destination elements and thereby is a

dynamic element in the tourism system (Page, 1994). Kahn (1985) summarized the role of

transport in tourism development in a number of postulates outlined in Table 1. Together, these

postulates outline in a concise manner the relationship between transport and tourism (Prideaux,

1999). The relationship with government and transportation is summarized well in postulate

number four. The funding and staffing positions that create or guide policy are all controlled by

the North Carolina General Assembly.

15

Table 1. Postulates in the role of transport in tourism development One: The evolution of tourism is greatly influenced by and is a function of the

development of the means to travel.

Two: Tourism is a mass phenomenon as well as an individual activity which needs and calls for transport and other facilities suitable for each category.

Three: Transport facilities are an initial and integral need for tourism and operate both as an expanding as well as a delimiting factor for traffic flows; the quality of transport services offered also influences the type of tourist flow.

Four: The planned development, maintenance, and operation of transport infrastructure under a well conceived overall transport policy, to meet the present and future technology and demand requirements, is the key to the success of the transport system contributing to the growth of tourism.

Five: Transport prices influence elasticity of demand for traffic and diversification of price structure and competition has encouraged price reduction and qualitative improvements amongst modes of transport much to the benefit of tourism.

Six: The integration of domestic and international transport systems and parallel co-ordination with other countries contributes to the ease of tourism flow and growth of domestic and international tourism.

Seven: Transport technological developments would exercise a deep influence on the means and patterns of transportation in both developing and developed societies, with the result that a more efficient, faster and safer transport system, beneficial to the growth and expansion of tourism would emerge and evolve.

Eight: Accommodation, as an essential ingredient of tourism development and success, must maintain comparative growth to meet the increasing and diverse demands of tourism and transporta5tion expansion.

Nine: The satisfactory development and equipping of terminal and en-route facilities the systematic improvement in infrastructure, the absorption and adoption of new technology and appropriate mass marketing in transport would have a pervasive impact in the continued growth of future world tourism.

Table 1. adapted from: Kahn, 1985

16

2.7 Government and Sustainable Tourism

When faced with an economic downturn, environmental costs are often overlooked or

ignored by governmental and commercial actors. Ecological modernization theory can offer

solutions to the environmental problems currently facing advanced industrial countries. It

suggests that regulation can help solve environmental problems which at the same time making

industry more competitive (Murphy & Gouldson, 1999).

The need for more government regulation in sustainability efforts is noted by Lane

(2009). He argued that the tourism industry has no driver or imperative to reduce environmental

costs. The industry has convinced government officials that self-regulation is sufficient but

tourism leaders have made little effort in long term adjustments. Without involvement from

local, state, and federal officials, the tourism industry will arguably continue unsound

environmental practices (Lane, 2009). Discussions of sustainable tourism and the role of

government planning have produced little action, leading Bramwell and Lane (2010) to

conclude:

Effective management systems for sustainable tourism are, however,

likely to require intervention and regulation by the state. In a review of

self regulation for sustainable tourism, Williams and Montanari (1999,

p.38) conclude that self regulation “by itself is not a sufficient approach.”

Among the arguments for this is that self regulation is voluntary and the

industry’s behavior can often revert to short-term self-interest. It may be

insufficiently guided by concern for public welfare, and it can be

undermined by fears about free riders (Bramwell, 1998). There is also the

question of creation of a level playing field: without binding regulation,

17

some companies may gain competitive advantage by non-compliance with

environmental standards. There may therefore be a requirement for

“command and control” regulation of some kind, and that may include a

need for government-led planning strategies and management initiatives

(p.1).

In North Carolina, self regulating associations have been established. These associations

promote and aid their members but exclude all other businesses not practicing environmental

initiatives. An example of this type of association is the Green Plus Institute for Sustainable

Development, which recently awarded the Durham Convention and Visitors Bureau with the

Green Plus Certification. The downside to this type of association is it leaves out the businesses

practicing social, cultural, and historical best practices. To date, there has not been a leader in the

tourism industry in North Carolina that has established this type of association.

2.8 Conclusions

Industry and government officials recognize the importance of their relationship, but

research that specifically addresses the tourism industry is very limited. Research in related fields

has provided the foundation for this study. The role of government in tourism development goes

beyond the obvious marketing and promotion budgets. Most aspects of government policy and

planning directly influence tourism development (e.g., transportation, zoning/planning, tax

revenues, health, and education). Researchers are continuing to address government’s role in

tourism but the demand for more sustainable destinations needs to begin to appear in future

research. Although extensive research has been made in order to define, operationalize and

implement sustainable tourism practices, there are still inconsistencies and gaps.

CHAPTER 3: DATA AND METHODOLOGY

3.1 Introduction

Assessing stakeholders’ perceptions on sustainable tourism development is vital for

establishing and developing tourism planning because their behavior or participation can greatly

influence the destiny of the tourism industry (Hao & Long, 2009). Managing sustainable tourism

interactions between the public sector, the private sector, and local residents can be very difficult

and hard to achieve (Timur & Getz, 2008). Therefore, it is necessary for stakeholders to be aware

of the level of knowledge and opinions that legislators hold regarding the current state of the

tourism industry. The current study was focused on exploring North Carolina legislators’

knowledge and perceptions of the tourism industry, including their opinion of and understanding

of sustainable tourism.

3.2 Design of the Study

This research project is a non-experimental mixed methods exploratory study focused on

determining North Carolina legislators’ perception of the tourism industry. As suggested by

McGehee et al. (2006), a combination of qualitative and quantitative data were obtained from

respondents to identify opinions and perceptions of the tourism industry. Specifically, this

methodology allows for: 1) descriptive account of data 2) inferential statistical analysis, and 3)

content analysis. Such a synthesis allows for an in-depth analysis of legislators’ attitudes towards

tourism and sustainable development. Although structured methodologies (i.e., scales) are

effective for measuring common and previously formed perceptions, unstructured methodology

(i.e., open-ended questions) is useful in capturing the unique and varied opinions of how to gain

legislative support. Thus, both types of questions were utilized in the current study.

19

An online survey was initially chosen as the most appropriate instrument to survey

members of the North Carolina General Assembly as it allowed the researcher to reach subjects

from varying locations. Cost-efficiency also contributed to the selection of a web-based survey.

Administering the questionnaire online simplified data input and analysis as well as minimized

error in data entry. Due to time constraints it was important to minimize the data analysis period.

After the initial data gathering period, different methods of reaching potential respondents were

explored due to lack of online responses. The total number of responses for the web-

administered survey was 13. In the fall of 2010, the researcher mailed a questionnaire attached

with a cover letter explaining the study purpose to all members of the North Carolina General

Assembly (Dillman, 1978). A total of four respondents completed the mail survey, thus requiring

the researcher to make individual appointments in person to encourage responses. The researcher

took 50 copies of the survey and cover letter to the legislative offices in Raleigh and distributed

to staff members. Due to the overall lack of responses from the multiple attempts to reach the

population, legislative staff members were then encouraged to complete the survey on behalf of

their representative. Staff members work closely with their legislator and constituency base on a

daily basis, therefore it is appropriate to include staff member representation in the absence of a

direct politician response.

3.3 Population and Sampling

To ensure equal political representation, every legislator in the North Carolina General

Assembly (173) was selected for the census. This method provided a geographically

comprehensive census of North Carolina legislators. Legislative email addresses and other

logistical information on the North Carolina General Assembly were obtained through the

Official Website of the North Carolina General Assembly (www.ncga.gov). The researcher

20

distributed a hyper-link to the aforementioned web-based survey to legislators in the North

Carolina General Assembly. Mail surveys were distributed to the legislative office addresses to

ensure that a staff member would receive the survey and re-direct the mail to the appropriate

address when legislators were not in session. Legislators were assured that participation in the

survey was voluntary to avoid any coercion or pressure.

3.4 Instrumentation and Distribution

Data were gathered using a web-based survey. Subjects received emails including an

encouraging message, a description of the study purpose, instructions on how to complete the

questionnaire, and a link to the survey page.

An electronic web address contained in the email message directed respondents to the

web survey. The survey was created using Qualtrics survey design software provided by East

Carolina University and hosted at the university server. Hosting at the ‘.edu’ domain allowed the

invitation email to pass some spam protection filters and ensure the survey was distributed by a

credible source. According to Dillman (2001), respondents are likely to trust university-based

surveys more than private or commercial surveys.

Following Dillman’s (2000) recommendations, a respondent-friendly survey design was

developed. It took into account some respondents’ inability to receive and respond to web

questionnaires with advanced programming features and therefore was kept as simple as possible

without losing visual aesthetics. Animation and sound effects that required advanced

programming were avoided. Dillman (2000) suggested that all surveys should be designed for

their potential use in mixed-mode survey situations. Therefore, the survey on the perceptions of

North Carolina legislators was developed so that it could be used as a paper-based questionnaire

21

if necessary. This decision proved to be a correct one since a paper-based version of the survey

was pursued once the online version failed to deliver an adequate response rate.

Principles for designing web questionnaires (Dillman, 2000) were applied to the survey in

this study. The survey began with a welcome screen that was motivational as well as instructions

on further actions. The welcome screen allowed the legislator to see that s/he had accessed the

survey page and explained how to proceed in order to complete the questionnaire. All questions

were presented in a conventional format similar to the ones used in paper-based surveys and

familiar to most legislators. Due to the small sample size, it was important to minimize missing

data. Therefore, the feature of forced response was utilized, preventing a respondent from

moving on to the next question without answering the current one on the screen.

3.5 Survey Development

The questionnaire was comprised of six sections: 1) general knowledge, 2) importance in

economy, 3) support or opposition, 4) state investment, 5) industry image, 6) demographics. All

sections, except section 2, incorporated both structured and unstructured methodologies. The

questions were adjusted from the McGehee et al. (2006) study to increase the level of analysis

from basic frequencies to inter-question relationships through ANOVA’s and correlations.

The first section intended to measure legislators’ factual knowledge of the basic statistics

of tourism, including the economic value of tourism, estimated number of jobs generated,

national ranking of the tourism industry, etc. Legislators were asked to choose their

answer from a range of alternatives in a multiple choice format. The second section

examined legislators’ perceptions of the economic and employment importance of

tourism, and what their fellow colleagues and constituents’ thought about the importance

22

of tourism. Respondents marked their agreement on these issues with responses ranging

from 1 = not at all important to 5 = very important. Legislators’ perception of tourism

wages and their attitude toward the priority of legislative support for tourism were also

investigated (McGehee et al., 2006, p.688).

A section on demographics was also included to investigate the overall profile of

respondents from the 2010 General Assembly. Respondents were asked to provide their gender,

personal zip code, county in which a majority of their constituents reside, party affiliation, and

legislative body.

Open elicitation.

Respondents were asked a series of open-ended questions originally developed by in the

previous study, and then extended to include sustainable tourism. They elicited strengths and

weaknesses of current lobby techniques used by the tourism industry. Respondents were asked

to list distinctive or unique words that came to mind when asked about tourism. Additionally,

respondents were requested to provide their definition of sustainable tourism in an attempt to

capture false perceptions and identify common keywords. Thus, answers to open-ended

questions provided another measure to identify legislators’ knowledge and perceptions of the

tourism industry. As suggested by the previous study, responses to the questions asked in each of

these areas underwent content analysis. Common phrases, words, and concepts were identified,

diagrammed and grouped into trends and patterns by the lead investigator (Miles & Huberman,

1994). This type of analysis will be used to uncover patterns in legislators’ definition of

sustainability.

Scale Items

23

Questions in this format were adjusted from McGehee’s 4-point scale to a minimum of a

5-point scale. Use of ordinal variables such as 5-point Likert scales with interval techniques is

the norm in contemporary social science (Garson, 2009). Questions ranged on a variety of

different scales. Examples of questions provided in the questionnaire include:

1. Within the last year, how often have you heard or seen reports about North Carolina tourism? (Check your answer) [ ] Regularly [ ] Often [ ] Sometimes [ ] Rarely [ ] Never 2. How would you describe the wages typically associated with the tourism industry? (Check your answer) [ ] High wages [ ] Average wages [ ] Above average wages [ ] Below average [ ] Low wages 3. How important is tourism to the economy of the state? (Check your answer) [ ] Extremely Important [ ] Very Important [ ] Neither Important or Unimportant [ ] Very Unimportant [ ] Not at all Important

3.6 Pretest

The researcher pre-tested the survey on a sample of 20 faculty, staff, and students at East

Carolina University (ECU) before distributing it to legislators. Faculty, staff, and students

affiliated with the Center for Sustainable Tourism at ECU received the web-based version of the

questionnaire. Participants were asked to complete the questionnaire and to provide any relevant

feedback on its quality. For example, faculty members offered feedback on the wording of the

survey, whether it was difficult to read and comprehend, and if any questions were too

complicated or ambiguous. The feedback was then incorporated into the survey prior to

administering the final survey.

3.7 Collection

Data was collected over a 5 month period that was extended from the original 60 day

period as suggested by Dillman (1978). Due to lack of responses a series of methods were used

24

to increase response rate. Online surveys, mail surveys, and in person appointments were all used

to capture the final response rate (N=34), which means that 20 % of legislators responded. The

data from all three collection strategies were combined in SPSS version 17.0.2 and analyzed.

Given the small sample size, analysis was limited to frequencies, correlations, and x2 tests

(McGehee et al., 2006). Results are separated into subsections in the next chapter for ease of

interpretation and discussion.

3.8 Conclusion

As a replication of the previous study, the questionnaire and distribution techniques were

replicated. The overall response rate (N=34, 20%) was comparable to the previous study but

numerous measures were taken to overcome the challenges in data collection. Additional

strategies were implemented to address the low response rate; these included a mail survey to all

members of the general assembly, in person appointments with legislators, and opening the

population to include legislative staff members. The questionnaire was comprised of open- and

closed-ended questions that explored legislators overall perceptions of the tourism industry. This

study focuses on increasing communication between the industry and its’ stakeholders and

incorporates sustainable development.

CHAPTER 4: ANALYSIS AND RESULTS

4.1 Introduction

In this chapter, the results are shown to meet the data analysis strategy explained earlier.

The analysis strategy was formed from of the research objectives. The first objective is to

identify the level of knowledge of General Assembly members with regards to tourism. The

second objective is to identify perceptions of tourism among legislators in the North Carolina

General Assembly. The third objective is to determine North Carolina General Assembly

members’ level of support or opposition to sustainable tourism development. The final objective

is to use the findings as an interpretative base upon which to offer recommendations for how to

advance legislative knowledge and support. These objectives are designed to facilitate more

effective communication between the tourism industry and elected officials.

As previously stated, this study is a replication of a previous study with an extension into

legislative opinions of sustainability. The previous study focused on lobbying techniques to

enhance communication between the industry and elected officials. Survey questions were

geared towards gauging legislators’ general knowledge of sustainability and what impacts of

sustainability are perceived as most important to them. Before running any analysis, the data

were screened and the respondent profile was established.

4.1 Screening of the Data

Data cleaning techniques were used on the data prior to the analysis. The data were

checked for accuracy, entry, missing values, and selected data were examined for outliers and

redundancies as recommended by Olson & Delen (2008). Two data sets (online responses and

paper responses) were merged into one to represent the population of respondents. Examination

26

of the missing data showed that 16 respondents did not complete any portion of the online

survey, these respondents were eliminated and no analysis was conducted.

Respondents were asked to answer a series of both close- and open-ended questions that

pertained to the legislators’ factual knowledge of the basic statistics of tourism, the impact and

value of the tourism industry, legislators’ actions to support tourism, and their opinions of the

strengths and weaknesses of the industry (McGehee et al., 2006). The responses to the close-

ended questions were analyzed using SPSS version 17.0.2. Basic demographic questions were

asked not to identify specific respondents, but to get an accurate profile of the respondent group.

4.3 Profile of Respondents

All members of the North Carolina General Assembly (N=170) were identified for the

survey (McGehee et al., 2006). During the 2009-2010 legislative terms, the group of respondents

was representative of the population in terms of House vs. Senate. However, the group of survey

respondents was not representative of the population in terms of gender and political party (Table

2). No conclusion could be drawn as to why the survey respondents were not representative by

gender and political party. However, not having an accurate representation of population can also

mean that responses to survey questions are not representative of the majority of the North

Carolina General Assembly. In Table 1 below, N = the number of responses to a particular

question, lower responses are due to missing data.

27

Table 2. Profile of Respondents

Respondents N %

State Legislator Population N %

Gender 30 88.2 170 100 Male Female

14 46.7 16 53.3

126 74.1 44 25.9

Political party 29 85.3 170 100 Democrat Republican

21 72.4 8 27.6

98 57.6 72 42.4

Senate/House 29 85.3 170 100 Senate House

7 24.1 22 75.9

51 30 119 70

Paper/Online 34 100 170 100 Paper Online

21 61.8 13 38.2

51 30 119 70

28

As shown on Table 2, 61.8% of the respondents completed the questionnaire and returned

via mail survey, while 38.2% completed the online version of the questionnaire. The gender

proportion of the respondents was balanced: male and female accounted for 46.7% and 53.3%

respectively. The majority of respondents were members of the Democratic Party with 72.4%,

compared to the Republican Party with more than one quarter (27.6%) of the total respondents.

As reflective of the overall population, three-quarters (75.9%) of respondents were members of

the House. Responses to questions regarding the geographical location of constituents and

residence were not evenly distributed across the state. Interestingly, the distributions of

respondents were concentrated in the piedmont region of NC (15), with 6 respondents from the

coast, and 3 respondents from the mountain region. Based on the regional tourism model –

mountain, piedmont, and coast – no analysis could be conducted.

4.4 Overall General Knowledge

Each year the North Carolina Division of Tourism, Film, and Sports Development

produces and publishes the North Carolina “Fast Facts” one-page flyer. This flyer can be found

on their website www.nccommerce.com/tourism, in their weekly newsletter “Newslink”, and it is

also distributed by hand to the NC General Assembly. The following charts were based on

questions that related to the legislators’ general knowledge of the tourism industry. The correct

answer to the three following questions can be found on the North Carolina Fast Facts flyer.

When asked the dollar value of tourism to the state’s economy, 27.3% of the sample

responded “I don’t know”, while two separate answers accounted for 21.2% each (5.1-10 billion

and 15.1 to 20 billion). Legislators reported that wages typically associated with the tourism

industry are average and 24.4% of respondents estimated that tourism generates 300,001–

350,000 jobs each year in the state. In terms of national ranking for visitor spending, 39.4% of

29

respondents felt that North Carolina falls among the top 6-10 states. A positive 84.4% of

legislators agree with economists’ calculations that tourism is one of the top five industries in

North Carolina.

30

Figure 1. Dollar value of tourism to the state

31

The respondents that answered $15.1 – 20 billion (21.2%) were correct in their response.

An astonishing (78.7%) of respondents did not answer the question correctly. Perhaps even more

striking is the fact that a significant portion of respondents did not know the dollar value of

tourism to the state’s economy. In addition to not knowing the dollar value or tourism to North

Carolina’s economy, the majority of respondents that were incorrect underestimated the actual

dollar value. It can be concluded that North Carolina General Assembly members are basing

legislative agendas and state agency budgets on an underestimation of the overall contribution of

the tourism industry. The actual dollar value of tourism in the state is $15.8 billion for the fiscal

year of 2009. Apart from economic value, job retention/creation is an important highlight for the

tourism industry.

32

Figure 2. Number of jobs generated in NC by tourism

33

In the economic recession of 2009, domestic tourism expenditures directly supported

183,800 jobs for North Carolina residents (NC Fast Facts, 2009). Again, 21.2% of respondents

answered correctly, while 78.7% of respondents answered incorrectly. The 78.7% of respondents

that answered incorrectly overestimated the number of jobs generated by tourism in North

Carolina. This overestimation could directly affect the responses in future sections regarding the

importance of tourism as an employer in the state. Because there is no clear reason to account for

an overestimation; the respondents might have been conditioned toward a positive answer due to

social desirability. Meaning, the respondents noticed that tourism is important to the researcher,

therefore the respondents answered in favor of tourism. It is important to note that in both

previous questions; nearly 80% of legislators did not know the correct answer to a question that

is provided to them on an annual basis. The next question involves national ranking and to what

extent is the state tourism office is doing the most effective job of promoting basic economic

facts about tourism.

34

Figure 3. National Ranking in terms of Tourists Spending

35

Nearly 40% of the respondents answered correctly when asked how North Carolina ranks

nationally in terms of tourist dollars spent. Once again, a majority of respondents underestimated

North Carolina’s visitor expenditures. This underestimation can lead legislators to undervalue the

tourism industry, therefore an elimination of funding or simple cuts in the budget are decided

based on an inaccurate portrayal of the industries’ benefits. This evaluation runs counter to the

statement that was given above regarding the overestimation of jobs provided by the tourism

industry.

When reviewing the previous responses, it is clear there is a lack of overall general

knowledge in the general assembly. This lack of knowledge could be due to members of the

general assembly disinterest in the tourism industry. A majority of respondents were unable to

answer questions that demonstrate the impact of tourism to the state. All answers to the questions

are provided by the North Carolina Division of Tourism, Film, and Sports Development.

4.5 Definition of Sustainable Tourism

To expand and enhance McGehee’s et al. (2006) study, questions pertaining to legislators

overall perception of sustainable development within the tourism industry were incorporated

throughout the questionnaire. To capture a snapshot of the general knowledge legislators have, a

question was developed regarding the definition of sustainability. Of the respondents that

answered, a brief definition of what is sustainable tourism is listed below (Table 3).

36

Table 3. Definitions of Sustainable Tourism Provided by Survey Respondents

• A state that attracts tourists and NC does quite well • An area that attracts with multiple activities

• An industry in which local people receive jobs • Beaches, Mountains, Zoo, etc.

• Continued improvement in tourism. • Events or areas that keep people interested in returning or sharing with others. • Highlighting attractions that keep NC green and beautiful. We are fortunate to

have many such attractions in our state. Some smaller farms, known as Agritourism businesses are growing in our state as well, combating losses of some of our small farms.

• Historic, Nature, Affordable • Interesting or fun sights, safe and comfortable places to stay, easy access,

affordable, and people have to be knowledgeable about what, where and when.

• Minimize damage to the environment • Natural Attractions, Historic Buildings, Festivals, etc.

• Sustainable tourism includes activities such as farm tours. • Sustainable Tourism makes me think of so-called ecotourism. Tourism activities

that are not ecologically destructive and emphasize the natural beauty of an area

• Sustainable tourism should be ongoing, publicized, educational, and affordable. Funds must be forthcoming

• Tourism industry that takes care of itself without government incentives

• Tourism that can be sustained over time, includes all regions, is environmentally friendly, provides economic recovery and that supports our social capital, e.g. appreciation and celebration of cultural heritage and elimination of poverty.

• Tourism that happens year after year, no matter what. Not driven by a specific event.

• Tourism that has repeat visitors by constantly providing additional or new things to appeal to visitors. Show them a great time and appreciate all visitors.

• Tourism that has the ability to weather economic problems. • Tourism that takes advantage of the environment without harming it is key to

sustainable tourism in my view. The best example of this right now is the newly opened NC History Center at Tryon Palace in New Bern

37

As stated previously, an expansion of the previous study incorporated sustainability in

tourism development to cater to the evolving shift in consumer demand towards sustainable

products. It is important to the tourism industry to identify legislative perceptions of

sustainability in order to communicate an accurate message to elected officials. The definitions

of sustainable tourism provided by survey respondents were categorized into themes, patterns,

and keywords. Three emerging themes were identified by the researcher; these themes are 1)

attractions/activities, 2) environment/natural resources, and 3) economically self-

sustaining/economic viability.

The themes identified by the researcher are vital in pinpointing areas of concern in terms

of legislative knowledge of sustainable tourism. The most common theme among the definitions

provided was sustainable tourism = economically self-sustaining/economic viability. Eight of the

twenty (40%) definitions included key words or phrases expressing economic components. This

result is not surprising given the economic turmoil of the 2009-2010 legislative term. As tough

decisions regarding budgets are made, legislators are relying on industries to support themselves

and not resort to government support. Key words/phrases supporting this theme include “takes

care of itself without government incentives” and “ability to weather economic problems.”

The second theme comprising another 40% of the definitions of sustainable tourism =

attractions/activities. This theme is closely aligned with the broad scope of traditional tourism. In

the broadest sense of the term traditional tourism, a destination provides attractions/activities to

draw visitors to their specific location. This theme is also aligned with economic viability; as

more visitors come to an area, more money is spent and in turn more jobs are created. However,

the previous two themes leave out a major component of sustainability, the environment.

38

The third theme identified, and possibly the most important part to the previous two

themes is the environment/natural resources theme. Without the environment and natural

resources to support such unique attractions, the tourism industry in North Carolina would not be

economically viable. Four out of twenty respondents (20%) mentioned minimizing, not harming,

or listed aspects of the environment in their definition of sustainable tourism. An even more

alarming discovery is that 80% of respondents did not mention the environment or any type of

environmental protection as a component of economic viability or creating more attractions to

draw in visitors. This statistic is disappointing due to the excitement the General Assembly has

expressed later in this chapter with regards to investment in sustainable tourism development.

Respondents were very general in their definitions of sustainable tourism. Therefore, the

researcher took a second approach to analyzing the responses into themed categories. The triple

bottom line approach to sustainable tourism has been used as a model for developing other

questions in the questionnaire. For this reason, the researcher categorized responses according to

which impact of the triple bottom line the definition provided. The triple bottom line refers to a

balance of economic, environmental, and social impacts of sustainability.

The most evident impact that respondents alluded to is the environment (40%). This

majority was reported in various ways; ranging from a list of natural resources (i.e. “beaches,

mountains, etc”) to full sentences about protection of the environment. The second theme

relating to the triple bottom line model is the economic impact of sustainability. This theme

accounted for 25% of the responses. These responses also ranged from tourism that is affordable

to an industry that supports itself without government incentives. The third theme in the model of

sustainable tourism is social impacts. One respondent (.05%) addressed the social impacts of

tourism. The response was a positive social impact that addressed job creation for the local

39

population. Fortunately, one respondent (.05%) provided a definition that included all three

impacts of sustainable tourism. This response did not appear to place any emphasis on one

impact over the other, which indicates that the respondent valued a balance between the three

impacts. Five responses (25%) were unable to be categorized into one of the three themes;

therefore, they were deemed “other”.

When addressing the issues and benefits of sustainable tourism development, it is

important for members of the General Assembly to have a well rounded knowledge base of the

subject. The evidence from general definitions of sustainable tourism shows that legislators

appear to have very little knowledge of the subject. From the results of both themed analyses of

the definitions of sustainable tourism, the researcher can conclude that legislators are willing to

support sustainable tourism without knowing the true definition of the term. This legislative body

is supporting a buzzword without knowing all of the facts because it represents progress in the

industry.

4.6 Importance of tourism towards the economy

The importance of tourism to the state’s economy is recognized by legislators as being

“extremely important” (53.1), compared to 3.1 percent of legislators that reported the importance

of tourism to their constituents as “not at all important.” The level of importance of tourism to

different aspects of the state is shown below (Table 4).

40

Table 4. Percentage of responses when asked about the importance of tourism

Extremely Important

Very Important

Neither Important nor Unimportant

Very Unimportant

Not at all important

Importance of tourism to the state’s economy…

53.1 40.6 6.3 n/a n/a

Importance of tourism as an employer in the state…

24.2 66.7 9.1 n/a n/a

Importance of tourism to other legislators…

6.1 66.7 21.2 n/a n/a

Importance of tourism to legislator’s constituents…

15.6 50.0 28.1 3.1 3.1

*n/a = no response

41

Although the responses to general knowledge were underwhelming, the General

Assembly appears to have a positive outlook on the importance of tourism towards the state.

Most respondents answered either “extremely important” or “very important” when surveyed

(Table 4). Pearson’s correlation coefficients were generated to test the strength of the

relationship between the importance of employment in the state and the level of importance to

the overall economy. The variables were numerically categorized in the data as 1) extremely

important 2) very important 3) neither important nor unimportant 4) very unimportant 5) not at

all important.

42

Table 5. Pearson Correlation to show level of importance

Mean Standard Deviation

N Pearson

Correlation Significance

(2-tailed)

How important is tourism to the

economy of the state?

1.53 .621 32

.600 .000 How important is

tourism as an employer in the

state?

1.85 .566 33

43

Pearson’s correlation of importance to the economy (M=1.53, SD=.621) and importance

as an employer (M=1.85, SD=.566) is significant, r (33) = .600, p= .000. A positive correlation

indicates that if the tourism industry provides jobs than it is also rated very highly on importance

to the economy. General knowledge and perceived level of importance of tourism are important

factors to consider when analyzing a legislators’ support for or opposition to tourism-related

legislation.

4.7 Support or opposition to tourism in the legislature

Table 6 shows the rating of support for tourism in the legislature during the next

legislative session. The respondents were given a total of five possible responses, based on the

Likert-scale, ranging from 1) High 2) Average 3) Below Average 4) Low 5) None. As shown in

the table below, no respondents answered options 3-5. The rating of support for tourism in the

next legislative session has numerous implications. First, it is important to note that even though

respondents did not answer options 3-5, support in the legislature is not overwhelmingly high.

Practitioners and lobbyists need to find ways to move the 19 respondents that answered

“Average” to the “High” category. Second, based on results from the previous section

(Importance of tourism towards the economy) it would appear that support for tourism should be

higher. There is clearly a disparity in the perception of the importance of tourism being relatively

high and the support of tourism ranking average. Even though North Carolina General Assembly

members feel tourism is important, they are not willing to allocate more dollars to support

tourism development.

44

Table 6. Support for tourism in legislature Frequency %

High 10 34.5

Average 19 65.5

45

A chi-square was used to examine the relationship between constituents’ requests for

tourism legislation and sponsorship of legislation supporting tourism (Table 7).

46

Table 7. Chi-square test results

Sponsored a bill to support tourism

df x2 Significance (2-

sided) Significance

(1-sided) No Yes Total

Constituents request for

legislation in support of tourism efforts

No

Count 5 4 9

1 3.2 .099 .091

Expected Count

3 6 9

Yes

Count 3 12 15

Expected Count

5 10 15

Total

Count 8 16 24

Expected Count

8.0 16.0 24.0

a. 1 cells (25.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 3.00.

b. Computed only for a 2x2 table

47

A significance of the relationship could not be determined because more than 20% of

cells have an expected count less than 5. In response to Question 16, most of those surveyed

(53.3 %) indicated that the efforts of the tourism industry to encourage legislative support have

been successful. To better understand the results for support in the legislature, the researcher felt

it necessary to capture legislators’ perceptions of the industry and professionals working in the

industry.

4.8 Image of the industry

McGehee’s et al. (2006) study shows 41% of the 2003 population (n=34, 20%) responded

that the tourism industry has a weaker professional image when compared to other industries.

Negative perceptions of the tourism industry were found in McGehee’s et al. (2006) 1990 and

2003 population. In 1990 and 2003, both groups of survey respondents agreed (23% in 1990,

38% in 2003) that the industry needs to be better organized. Of the current legislative survey,

46.4% of respondents indicated that they perceived the industry professionals to have a similar

professional image when compared to other industries. Strong evidence of a positive image was

found when the respondents were asked to represent their perception of the tourism industry

(Figure 4).

48

Figure 4. Perception of the tourism industry

49

The tourism industry has made positive advancements in terms of image since

McGehee’s studies in 1990 and 2003. A direct comparison of questions regarding image are

limited because of differing scales. Over the past seven years since the initial study was

conducted, the tourism industry has significantly reduced the percentage of General Assembly

members that feel the “industry needs to be better organized.” The tourism industry is now

perceived to be “well established” (32%) or “growing” (41%) among members of the 2009-2010

North Carolina General Assembly. This step toward a more positive image for the tourism

industry can lead to more support from the General Assembly in future years.

4.9 Analysis Comparing Political Party and Legislative Body

Both political party groups were analyzed separately to compare results among differing

platforms. Over half of those surveyed in both political parties (50% of Republicans and 52% of

Democrats) reported that tourism is extremely important to the economy of the state. When the

subject were given a choice of investing in sustainable tourism practices or traditional tourism

practices, the majority (87.5 % of Republicans and 83.3% of Democrats) commented that they

would prefer investments in sustainable tourism practices. If we now turn to Table 8, a

representation of what impact of sustainability (following the triple bottom line approach) would

be the most beneficial to state is shown.

50

Table 8. Impacts of Sustainability to the state – Political Party

Republican %

Democrat %

Economic 87.5 57.9 Environmental 12.5 26.3 Social 0.0 15.8

51

Results of survey respondents above were based off Question 19 asking, “What impact of

sustainable tourism do you think provides the most benefit to the state?” This question was

developed based on the triple bottom line approach of sustainability – economic, social, and

environmental impacts. The Republican Party indicated they greater value in the economic

impacts of sustainability; meaning a business should be able to operate normal hours in any type

of economic atmosphere. The Democratic Party felt similarly, placed most emphasis on

economic impacts, but also spread out among the other two categories of environment and social

impacts. As the tourism industry continues to educate their legislators, it will be most beneficial

to focus on the economic benefits of tourism.

Recognizing differences among legislative body is also a factor in effective

communication. Similar to the analysis above, both legislative bodies were analyzed separately

to determine differences among members of the North Carolina House of Representatives and

the North Carolina Senate. When asked about the importance of tourism to the state’s economy

more than half (59.1%) of the members of the North Carolina House of Representatives found

tourism “extremely important” to the state’s economy. However, a mere 28.6% of North

Carolina Senators found tourism to be “extremely important” to the state’s economy. A more

interesting finding is members of the North Carolina Senate reported an equal 28.6% that

tourism is “neither important nor unimportant” to the state’s economy. This underwhelming

value of tourism in the North Carolina Senate could be due to a lack of general knowledge about

the tourism industry in the state. These results also imply that members of the North Carolina

House of Representatives are not communicating with North Carolina Senators, or this

difference could be accounted for in the varying duties of each legislative body.

52

Both parties reported favorably to investments in sustainable tourism. Almost all of both

legislative bodies (84.2% of House of Representatives, 85.7% of Senators) reported that they

prefer investment in sustainable tourism development rather than traditional tourism

development. Below (Table 9) represents responses, analyzed separately among legislative body,

to the question regarding what impact of sustainable tourism provides the most benefit to the

state.

53

Table 9. Impacts of Sustainability to the state – Legislative Body

House of Representatives %

Senators %

Economic 71.4 50.0 Environmental 19.0 33.3 Social 9.5 16.7

54

The results indicate that much more emphasis is placed on economic impacts, rather than

a balanced triple bottom line approach. The least valued impact to members of the North

Carolina General Assembly is the social impact. Social impacts of sustainability are undervalued

in both political parties and between both legislative bodies. The low percentages in the value of

environmental impacts can also be accounted for in legislative definitions of sustainable tourism.

Once again, this leads the researcher to wonder, based on definitions of sustainable tourism

provided in the previous section, what are legislators supporting exactly?

4.10 Conclusion

The importance of tourism has grown in a positive direction since the initial study

conducted by McGehee in 1990. Overall legislators rate tourism as a high priority in the General

Assembly and recognize tourism’s economic benefits to the state. Perceptions among political

party are fairly balanced and the respondent population reflects the population in the General

Assembly. With the limited number of respondents (N=34, 20%), the more detailed analysis of

this group was limited to frequencies, correlations, x2 tests, and keywords/theme analysis of

open-ended questions.

CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS, AND AREAS FOR FUTURE RESEAR CH

5.1 Introduction

In this chapter, the researcher provides a summary of the study, general conclusions, and

recommendations for future research. The summary of the study revisits the statement of the

problem, an overview of sources and methodologies, and key findings are presented. General

conclusions drawn from the findings are presented in the order they appeared in the Chapter

Four. The implementation section indicates how this research should be implemented in a

professional situation and an academic setting. Finally the recommendation section will highlight

where future research should be directed.

5.2 Conclusions

This study provides insights into possible legislative support for sustainable tourism by

analyzing the knowledge and opinions of members of the North Carolina General Assembly. It is

important for the industry to identify the knowledge base, perceptions, and opinions of North

Carolina legislators’ to have an effective communication channel for gaining legislative support.

This study replicates but also expands upon an earlier survey of North Carolina legislators

conducted by McGehee et al. (2006) by examining legislators’ opinions and perceptions of

sustainable tourism.

Although many tourism academics and researchers recognize the value of measuring the

perceptions of legislators with regard to the tourism industry; very little research has been

conducted to examine the relationship between legislators and sustainable tourism development.

To address this gap in the literature, a survey instrument was adapted from McGehee et al.

(2006) and expanded to incorporate questions regarding sustainable tourism. The data were

collected through web-based, mail, and face-to-face surveys. The overall response rate was

56

still limited (n=34, 20%), so analysis of the data was limited to frequencies, x2, and correlations.

Major findings include a lack of general knowledge, relatively high support for and overall

positive image of tourism. Economic impacts of sustainable tourism are valued the most, and

state money should be invested in sustainable tourism development.

The results and findings in Chapter 4 provide a more detailed description leading the

researcher to the following conclusions. There is a lack of knowledge in the general assembly of

general tourism statistics. An astonishing number of respondents were unable to answer the

questions about tourism in North Carolina correctly. However, this lack of general knowledge

did not affect legislators’ level of support for the industry. The importance of tourism as - an

employer, to other legislators, to legislators’ constituents – all contribute to the overall

importance to the state’s economy. This level of importance to the state’s economy reinforces the

general assembly’s support for tourism. Positive image also contributes to the overall support for

the tourism industry. The tourism industry has appeared to improve their overall image since

McGehee’s et al. (2006) previous studies. With regards to sustainable tourism, economic benefits

are valued the highest in the respondent pool. Democrats recognize the importance of

contributing to all three sectors of the triple bottom line. Republicans did not see value in social

impacts of sustainability. Both legislative bodies placed value in each of the impacts of

sustainable tourism; however social impacts are still not valued as highly in the North Carolina

General Assembly. A major finding in the knowledge base of legislators was shown in the

definitions of sustainable tourism. Members of the North Carolina General Assembly reported

they heavily support investment in sustainable tourism development, but lack the key terms in

the definition of sustainable tourism. This should be concerning to practitioners and academics in

the field of sustainable tourism because members of the General Assembly are supporting a

57

“buzzword” without knowing its true meaning. These conclusions will provide insight for future

communication between the industry and legislators.

5.3 Recommendations

The previous study has set a precedent for practical application of this study. Results

from McGehee’s et al. (2006) study produced the development of the North Carolina Travel and

Tourism Coalition in 1991. This group was formed to provide a unified voice to the tourism

industry’s lobbying efforts. To aid in the efforts of many tourism businesses across the state

practicing sustainability, these findings can be used to educate the NCTTC about the knowledge,

perceptions, and opinions of the members of the North Carolina General Assembly. Another

practical implementation of this research would be to develop an advocacy group specifically

focused on sustainable tourism development. This group could be a special committee within the

NCTTC or a separate entity with funding from the industry to encourage support for sustainable

practices. Managerial staff can also apply the findings from this study to any strategic marketing

or corporate social responsibility plans in the future.

The results of the data analysis provide insight as to how advocacy groups can best

communicate with legislators. It is clear from the data that legislators place the most value on

economic benefits to the state. Advocates for sustainability should concentrate their voice around

the economic benefits that are contributed to implementing environmental or social technologies

or strategies in their tourism destination. Although no questions were asked in the questionnaire

about the best tactics to communicate, the challenges in increasing the response rate provided an

insight into the most effective strategy for getting results. The research techniques displayed the

most effective strategy for communication with members of the general assembly is through face

to face contact.

58

Social networks play an important role in connecting with legislators and producing

results. The tourism industry has “gatekeepers” that legislators will turn to in order to get

information. These gatekeepers have established credibility within the industry and have made a

point to build relationships with members of the General Assembly. When attempting to educate,

persuade, or simply communicate with political officials, an important component in having an

impact is working with the industry gatekeepers.

From an academic perspective, this study provided the challenges of using a single data

collection strategy. These findings also provide a beginning to the task of filling a gap in

literature with regards to legislative perceptions of sustainability within the tourism industry.

With this initial stepping stone, the results of this study can be communicated by academics to

tourism practitioners to enhance communication channels. This type of practical research can

also encourage practitioners to use more research based decision-making. Recommendations for

future research are provided in the following section.

5.4 Areas for Future Research

Future researchers can extend this study in a number of ways. First, conducting the study

in all 50 states would enhance researchers and practioners understanding of the national political

stance on sustainable tourism development. Also, this technique would allow practitioners to

learn about their competitors’ strengths and weaknesses to encourage more legislative focus.

Second, possible research could be done comparing campaign promises and the

legislators resume of bills introduced or supported. This type of comparison would be

particularly interesting to release in an election year to begin to track how campaign promises

effect voter preferences.

59

Third, a longitudinal study similar to McGehee’s et al. (2006) would be beneficial to the

tourism industry to track progress over time. It would be possible to increase the response rate by

conducting this study over a number of years. Members of the North Carolina General Assembly

would become more familiar with the study if they saw it on an annual basis, possibly

encouraging them to complete it without hesitation. This type of longitudinal study would be

another research method that could be introduced into future studies.

Political changes in the North Carolina General Assembly happened in the 2011 election

year. The former Democrat-dominated General Assembly is now predominantly Republican. It is

possible that if the study were conducted now that findings would be significantly different with

a Republican majority.

Another area for future research is a study that encompasses all levels of government –

federal, state, and local- would provide a more thorough analysis of the perceptions of

sustainable tourism. In this study, the importance of the industry and the level of education might

vary. This would show the gaps in communication at multiple levels and provide evidence of

where education should be focused.

Finally, using different methodologies such as in-depth interviews, focus groups, and

surveys would be beneficial to gain a better understanding of legislators’ knowledge and

opinions of sustainable tourism development.

5.5 Final Comments

The problem of the study was to address a gap in literature in understanding legislators’

knowledge and opinions of sustainable tourism development. This research sought to enhance

effective communication between elected officials and the tourism industry.

60

In closing, the researcher observed that legislators still have a lack of understanding of

the overall impact of tourism to the state. However, they still rank tourism highly in terms of

support and importance. A lack of responses with multiple attempts of contact limited the type of

analysis conducted and thus affected the results. This study has the potential to be replicated and

expanded in a number of ways, such as incorporating additional open ended questions,

examining multiple states for comparison, and examining multiple levels of government, to

better understand elected officials perceptions.

References

Abeyrante, R. (1995). Proposals and guidelines for the carriage of elderly and disabled persons

by air. Journal of Travel Research , 52-59.

About the Coalition. (2006). North Carolina Travel and Tourism Coalition. Retrieved March 10, 2010 from http://www.ncttc.com/aboutus.htm

Adams, Chris (2009). Marketing to the “Green” Traveler (PowerPoint Slides). Retrieved January 5, 2010 from RETI Webinar online at: http://www.ecu.edu/cs-acad/sustainabletourism/RETI/Webinars.cfm

An Act to Authorize Dare County to Levy an Occupancy Tax. (1985). General Assembly of North Carolina House Bill 532 .

Berry, S. (1997). Sustainable tourism: A regional perspective. Tourism Management , 433-440.

Bouquet, M., & Winter, M. (1987). Introduction: Tourism politics and practice. In Who From Their Labours Rest: Conflict and Practice in Rural Tourism (pp. 1-8). Aldershot: Gower.

Bramwell, B., & Lane, B. (1993). Sustainable tourism: An evolving global approach. Journal of Sustainable Tourism , 1-5.

Bramwell, B., & Lane, B. (2010). Editorial. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 1-5.

Buckley, R. (2004). Partnerships in ecotourism: Australian political frameworks. International Journal of Travel Research , 75-83.

Charlton & Essex (1996). The involvement of district councils in tourism in England and Wales. Geoforum, 175–192.

Cook, D. (1982). The fight to conserve California’s coast. Geographical Magazine, 623-29.

Crick, M. (1989). Representations of international tourism in the social sciences. Annual Review of Anthrolpology , 307-344.

Dillman D.A. (2000). Mail and internet surveys: The tailored design method (2nd ed.). New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Dredge, D., & Jenkins, J. (2003). Federal-state regulations and tourism public policy: New South Wales Australia. Current Issues in Tourism, 414-443.

Dredge, D., & Moore, S. (1992). A methodology for the integration of tourism in town planning. The Journal of Tourism Studies, 8-21.

Garson (2009). Data Levels and Measurement. Retrieved on April 19, 2010 from http://faculty.chass.ncsu.edu/garson/PA765/datalevl.htm

62

Getz, D., & Timur, S. (2008). A network perspective on managing stakeholders for sustainable urban tourism. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 445-461.

Goals and Mission of NCTTC. (2009). North Carolina Travel and Tourism Coalition. Retrieved March 10, 2010 from http://www.ncttc.com/legislative-goals.htm

Godfrey, K.B. (1998). Attitudes towards ‘sustainable tourism’ in the UK: a view from local government. Journal of Tourism Management, 213-224.

Goeldner, C. & Ritchie, J.R. (2003). Tourism: Principles, practices, and philosophies. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Hall, C. (1991). Introduction to tourism in Australia: Impacts, planning, and development. Melbourne: Longman Cheshire.

Hall, C. (1994). Tourism and politics: Policy, power, and place. Chichester, UK: Wiley.

Hao, H., & Long, P. (2009). Measuring property owners’ perceptions on sustainable tourism in a coastal resort community. Unpublished whitepaper, East Carolina University.

Holden, A. (2008). Environment and tourism (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge.

Hope, C., & Klemm, M. (2001). Tourism in difficult areas revisited: The case of Bradford. Tourism Management, 629-635.

Horochowski, K., & Moisley, R.N. (1999). Local participation and attaining sustainable tourism: A comparative study of Honduran ecotourism development. In McCool, S.F. and Moisley, R.N. (Eds.), Tourism, Recreation, and Sustainability. (183-194). Cambridge: CAB International.

Ivars Baidal, J. (2004). Tourism planning in Spain: Evoluntion and prospectives. Annals of Tourism Research, 313-333.

Kahl, R. (1985). Dynamics of tourism: A trilogy (Vol.111). Transportation and Marketing, New Delhi: Sterling Publishers.

Kerr, B., Barron, G., & Wood, C. (2001). Politics, policy, and regional tourism administration: A case examination of Scottish area tourist board funding. Tourism Management, 649-657.

Lane, B. (2009). Thirty years of sustainable tourism: Drivers, progress, problems-and the future. In Sustainable Tourism Futures: perspectives on systems, restructuring, and innovations (pp. 20-31). New York: Routledge.

Leiper, Neil (1979). The framework of tourism: Towards a definition of tourism, tourist, and the tourist industry. Annals of Tourism Research, 390–407.

Lobbying (2010). National Conference on State Legislators. Retrieved on March 30, 2010 from http://www.ncsl.org/default.aspx?tabid=15344

Madrigal, R. (1993). A tale of tourism in two cities. Annals of Tourism Research, 336-353.

63

Mak, J., & Moore, J. (1998). Political economy of protecting unique recreational resources: Hanauma Bay, Hawaii. Ambio , 217-225.

McCool, S., & Moisley, R. N. (2008). Tourism, recreation, and sustainability: Linking culture and the environment (2nd ed.). Cambriage: CAB International.

McGehee, N. & Meng, F. (2006). The politics of perception: Legislative images of the tourism industry in Virginia and North Carolina. Journal of Travel Research.

McGehee, N., Meng, F., & Tepanon, Y. (2006). Understanding legislators and their perceptions of the tourism industry: The case of North Carolina, USA, 1990 and 2003. Tourism Management .

Metz, G. (2010, June 9). Tourism supporters: Stop the funding cuts. The Delaware County Daily Times.

Miles, M., & Huberman, A. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: A sourcebook of new methods. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Moore, T. (2002). The parks are being loved to death and other frauds and deceits in recreation management. Journal of Leisure Research, 52-118.

Murphy, J., & Gouldson, A. (2000). Environmental policy and industrial innovation: integrating environment and economy through ecological modernisation. Geoforum, 33-44.

Norman, W. (1987). A descriptive profile of Michigan's bed and breakfast industry. Master's Thesis , Michigan State University.

North Carolina 2007-2008 County and Municipal Occupany Tax and Meals Tax. (2008). Retrieved November 12, 2010 from North Carolina Department of Revenue: http://www.dor.state.nc.us/taxes/sales/rates.html

Olsen, S. (2010, May 7). State tourism cuts alter marketing methods. Indiana Buisness Journal.

Page, S. (1994). Transport for tourism. London: Routledge.

Palmer, A., & Bejou, D. (1995). Tourism destination marketing alliances. Annals of Tourism Research, 616-629.

Pearce, P. (1989). Tourist development (2nd ed.). London: Longman.

Prideaux, B. (1999). The role of the transport system in destination development. Tourism Managment, 53-63.

Sustainable Tourism (2004). World Tourism Organization. Retrieved on March 30, 2010 from http://pub.unwto.org/WebRoot/Store/Shops/Infoshop/Products/.../1372-1.pdf

Travel and Tourism Fast Facts. (2009). North Carolina Department of Commerce. Retrieved on February 20, 2010 from http://www.nccommerce.com/tourism

64

U.S. Travel Outlook. (2010, June 25). Retrieved August 22, 2010 from U.S. Travel Association: http://www.ustravel.org/about-us-travel

Urry, J. (1990). The tourist gaze: Leisure and travel in contemporary societies. London: Sage Publications.

White, S. (2001). Nonprofit administrators’ and state legislators’ perceptions of effective state lobbying techniques. Unpublished dissertation, University of Alabama.

World Commission on Environment and Development. (1987). New York: Oxford University Press.

Yu, R. (2010, 3 4). Obama signs new law to help promote U.S. tourism. USA Today.

APPENDIX A: Consent Form

INFORMED CONSENT DOCUMENT

Title of Research Study: Perceptions of Sustainable Tourism: North Carolina Legislators’ Perceptions Principal Investigator: Shannon Arnold Institution: East Carolina University Address: RW-208 Rivers Building. East Carolina University, Greenville NC 27858 Work Telephone #: (252)-560-7897 INTRODUCTION

You have been asked to participate in a study conducted by Shannon Arnold, graduate student at East Carolina University. In this survey we are interested in learning about your knowledge and opinions of the tourism industry and sustainable tourism in North Carolina. Specifically, this study is interested in learning about your perceptions to enhance better communication between the tourism industry and local legislators. You have been asked to provide responses to a mail survey that will last approximately 7-10 minutes. The information you provide will be strictly private and used only for these purposes.

INFORMED CONSENT I have been asked to participate in a research study being carried out by Shannon Arnold. I understand the purpose of the research and that the potential risks to me are minimal. I understand that any information I provide will be kept private and confidential.

I understand that my participation in this study is voluntary and that I may stop at any time I choose. I may also choose not to answer specific questions without entirely stopping my participation. Should I at any time have any questions about this research; the investigator will be available to answer them. Also, if I have any questions about my rights in this research, I may contact the Chair of the University and Medical Center Institutional Review Board at (252)-816-2914.

Signature Date

66

APPENDIX B: Survey instrument

North Carolina 2010 Tourism Legislative Survey

Instructions: In the past two decades sustainable tourism has become a topic of interest for the state of North Carolina. In this survey we are interested in learning about your knowledge and opinions of the tourism industry and sustainable tourism in NC. Answer each question as best as you can. Your participation in this study is voluntary and all responses will remain confidential. Your survey instrument has an identification number so that we can keep track of distribution. At no time will your name be released or associated with your responses.

1. Within the last year, how often have you heard or seen reports about North Carolina tourism? (Check your answer) [ ] Regularly [ ] Often [ ] Sometimes [ ] Rarely [ ] Never 2. What would you estimate is the dollar value of tourism to the state’s economy? (Check your answer) [ ] 1-5 billion [ ] 10.1-15 billion [ ] 20.1-25 billion [ ] 5.1-10 billion [ ] 15.1-20 billion [ ] don’t know 3. What would you estimate are the number of jobs generated in North Carolina by tourism? (Check your answer) [ ] 150,001-200,000 jobs [ ] 250,001-300,000 jobs [ ] 350,001-400,000 jobs

[ ] 200,001-250,000 jobs [ ] 300,001-350,000 jobs [ ] other _____________ 4. How would you describe the wages typically associated with the tourism industry? (Check your answer) [ ] High wages [ ] Average wages [ ] Above average wages [ ] Below average [ ] Low wages 5. How do you think North Carolina ranks nationally in terms of the overall amount tourists spend when they visit the state? (Check your answer) [ ] Among the top 5 [ ] Among the top 6-10 [ ] Among the top 11-15 [ ] Among the top 16-20 [ ] Among the top 21-25 [ ] I don’t know 6. Economists calculate that tourism is one of the top five industries in North Carolina. Do you agree with this estimation? (Check your answer)

[ ] Agree [ ] Disagree [ ] I don’t know

7. Briefly describe your definition of sustainable tourism.

67

8. How important is tourism to the economy of the state? (Check your answer) [ ] Extremely Important [ ] Very Important [ ] Neither Important or Unimportant [ ] Very Unimportant [ ] Not at all Important 9. Compared to other industries, how important is tourism as an employer in the state? (Check your answer) [ ] Extremely Important [ ] Very Important [ ] Neither Important or Unimportant [ ] Very Unimportant [ ] Not at all Important 10. In your opinion, how important is tourism to other legislators? (Check your answer) [ ] Extremely Important [ ] Very Important [ ] Neither Important or Unimportant [ ] Very Unimportant [ ] Not at all Important 11. In general, how important do you think tourism is to your constituents? (Check your answer) [ ] Extremely Important [ ] Very Important [ ] Neither Important or Unimportant [ ] Very Unimportant [ ] Not at all Important 12. During the last year, have any of your constituents requested that you support tourism legislation or programs? (Check your answer) [ ] Yes [ ] No [ ] Don’t remember If yes, what legislation or programs? ________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ 13. During your term of office, have you sponsored a bill, voted for a bill, or supported programs which have helped the tourism industry to develop? (Check your answer) [ ] Yes [ ] No [ ] Don’t remember [ ] Recently elected If yes, what bill or programs did you support? ________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ 14. During your term of office, have you sponsored a bill, voted for a bill, or supported programs which have helped the tourism industry towards sustainable development? (Check your answer) [ ] Yes [ ] No [ ] Don’t remember [ ] Recently elected If yes, what bill or programs did you support? ________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________ 15. Many issues will be faced during the next session. Would you rate the support for tourism in the legislature as: (Check your answer) [ ] High [ ] Average [ ] Below average [ ] Low [ ] None 16. What is your opinion of the success of the efforts of the tourism industry to encourage legislative support for the industry? (Check your answer) [ ] Very Successful [ ] Successful [ ] Somewhat Successful [ ] Not very Successful [ ] Not at all Successful 17. The state provides $13.8 million for tourism promotion through the North Carolina Division of Tourism, Film, and Sports Development. The tourism industry spends considerably more on promotion. Do you feel that:

68

[ ] The state should commit more dollars to promotion [ ] The current level of tourism promotion funding by the state is adequate [ ] The state should commit fewer dollars to promotion [ ] Unsure about amount of funding, which should be committed by the state

18. Do you think it is more important for the state to invest money into sustainable tourism promotion than traditional tourism? (Check one answer)

[ ] Yes [ ] No 19. What impact of sustainable tourism do you think provides the most benefit to the state? (Check one answer) [ ] Economic Impacts [ ] Environmental Impacts [ ] Social Impacts 20. A growing tourism industry can provide much needed tax revenue. Prioritize where you think any additional revenue generated should be invested.

Level of Investment

Cultural resources [ ] High [ ] Medium [ ] Low Economic development [ ] High [ ] Medium [ ] Low Education [ ] High [ ] Medium [ ] Low Environmental quality [ ] High [ ] Medium [ ] Low Health care [ ] High [ ] Medium [ ] Low Public safety [ ] High [ ] Medium [ ] Low Transportation [ ] High [ ] Medium [ ] Low

21. By the year 2020, what industries do you think will be the top FIVE revenue generators for the state? (Please list)

22. In terms of professional image, how would you rate the leaders of the North Carolina tourism industry as compared to the leaders of other industries? (Check your answer) [ ] Stronger professional image [ ] Similar professional image [ ] Not quite as strong professional image [ ] Much weaker professional image 23. What words or phrases would you use to describe the North Carolina tourism industry? (Write the words or phrases in the space provided)

69

24. Which of the following represent your perception of the tourism industry? (Check all that apply) [ ] The industry is well established [ ] The industry is growing [ ] The industry is in transition [ ] The industry is coming of age [ ] The industry needs to be better organized [ ] The industry needs to develop more professionalism [ ] Other (specify) ___________________________ 25. In your opinion, what are the strengths of the North Carolina Tourism Industry?

26. What are the weaknesses of the North Carolina Tourism Industry?

27. What should the industry do to increase support from legislators?

28. What should the industry avoid doing while attempting to increase support from legislators?

29. If you wanted to get information about the value, impact, or issues facing tourism in North Carolina, what person or persons would you contact and/or what agency, group, or association would you contact? (List person(s) and/or agency/association)

Person Agency/Association

[1]___________________________________ [1]___________________________________

[2]___________________________________ [2]___________________________________

[3]___________________________________ [3]___________________________________

30. Are you male or female? [ ] Male [ ] Female 31. What is your political affiliation? [ ] Democrat [ ] Republican 32. What sector of the General Assembly do you serve? [ ] House [ ] Senate

70

33. What county do the majority of your constituents reside in?

34. What is the local zip code in which you reside?

Thank you very much for your time and comments – we appreciate it! If you have any questions, please contact Shannon Arnold at arnolds04@students.ecu.edu

71

APPENDIX C: IRB Approval Letter

72

APPENDIX D. Legislation on Occupancy Tax Laws GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF NORTH CAROLINA

1985 SESSION CHAPTER 449

HOUSE BILL 532 AN ACT TO AUTHORIZE DARE COUNTY TO LEVY AN OCCUPANCY TAX.

The General Assembly of North Carolina enacts:

Section 1. Occupancy Tax.

(a) Authorization and Scope. The Dare County Board of Commissioners may by

resolution, after not less than 10 days' public notice and after a public hearing held

pursuant thereto, levy a room occupancy tax of three percent (3%) of the gross receipts

derived from the rental of the following in Dare County:

(1) Any room, lodging, or similar accommodation subject to sales tax

under G.S. 105-164.3(4); and

(2) A campsite.

This tax does not apply to accommodations furnished by nonprofit charitable,

educational, or religious organizations when furnished in furtherance of their nonprofit purpose.

This tax is in addition to any state or local sales tax.

(b) Collection. Every operator of a business subject to the tax levied under this act

shall, on and after the effective date of the levy of the tax, collect the tax. This tax shall

be collected as part of the charge for furnishing a taxable accommodation. The tax shall

be stated and charged separately from the sales records, and shall be paid by the

purchaser to the operator of the business as trustee for and on account of Dare County.

The tax shall be added to the sales price and shall be passed on to the purchaser instead of

being borne by the operator of the business. The Dare County Tax Collector shall design,

73

(c) print, and furnish to all appropriate businesses and persons in the county the

necessary forms for filing returns and instructions to ensure the full collection of the tax.

An operator of a business who collects the occupancy tax levied under this act may

deduct from the amount remitted by him to the county a discount of three percent (3%) of

the amount collected.

(d) Administration. The county shall administer a tax levied under this act. A tax

levied under this act is due and payable to the county tax collector in monthly

installments on or before the 15th day of the month following the month in which the tax

accrues. Every person, firm, corporation, or association liable for the tax shall, on or

before the 15th day of each month, prepare and render a return on a form prescribed by

the county. The return shall state the total gross receipts derived in the preceding month

from rentals and sales upon which the tax is levied. A return filed with the Dare County

Tax Collector under this act is not a public record as defined by G.S. 132-1 and may not

be disclosed except as required by law.

(e) Penalties. A person, firm, corporation, or association who fails or refuses to file

the return required by this act shall pay a penalty of ten dollars ($10.00) for each day's

omission. In case of failure or refusal to file the return or pay the tax for a period of 30

days after the time required for filing the return or for paying the tax, there shall be an

additional tax, as a penalty, of five percent (5%) of the tax due in addition to any other

penalty, with an additional tax of five percent (5%) for each additional month or fraction

thereof until the tax is paid.

Any person who willfully attempts in any manner to evade a tax imposed under this act

or who willfully fails to pay the tax or make and file a return shall, in addition to all other

74

penalties provided by law, be guilty of a misdemeanor and shall be punishable by a fine

not to exceed one thousand dollars ($1,000) and imprisonment not to exceed six months.

(f) Use and Distribution of Tax Revenue. Dare County shall distribute two-thirds of

the net proceeds of the tax, on a monthly basis, to the Towns of Kill Devil Hills, Kitty

Hawk, Manteo, Nags Head, and Southern Shores in proportion to the amount of ad

valorem taxes levied by each town for the preceding fiscal year. The county shall retain

the remaining one-third of the net proceeds. Revenue distributed to a town or retained by

the county under this subsection may be used only for tourist related purposes, including

construction and maintenance of public facilities and buildings, garbage, refuse, and solid

waste collection and disposal, police protection, and emergency services.

As used in this subsection, "net proceeds" means gross proceeds less the cost

to the county of administering and collecting the tax.

(f) Repeal. A tax levied under this act may be repealed by a resolution

adopted by the Dare County Board of Commissioners. Repeal of a tax levied under this

act shall become effective on the first day of a month and may not become effective until

the end of the fiscal year in which the repeal resolution was adopted. Repeal of a tax

levied under this act does not affect a liability for a tax that attached before the effective

date of the repeal, nor does it affect a right to a refund of a tax that accrued before the

effective date of the repeal (NC General Assembly, House Bill H532, 1985).